Sola scriptura is a tradition of men

[Anima_Christi]

Protestants often quote Jesus’ condemnation of the Pharisees to condemn Sacred Tradition. It occurred to me though that Jesus condemned “traditions of men” because they “nullify the word of God” and that the doctrine of sola scriptura is a tradition of men.
Can anyone help me think of examples where the doctrine of sola scriptura “nullifies the word of God” (word of God as referring to either Sacred Scripture or oral, Sacred Tradition).

 

[levi86]

The ironic thing about this is that protestants try to compare the Pharisees to the RCC, however Christ actually endorses the authority of the Pharisees, therefore if any protestant uses this passage as an example he is actually acknowledging the authority of the RCC.

1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,

**2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat:

3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not**.

4 For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.

5 But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments, (Matthew 23)

Yes, sola scriptura is completely a man made tradition, there is not ONE passage in the NT that even suggests such a doctrine. If any one can find me even one passage that does support it I will become a protestant.

 

[kleary]

Anima Christi:

Protestants often quote Jesus’ condemnation of the Pharisees to condemn Sacred Tradition. It occurred to me though that Jesus condemned “traditions of men” because they “nullify the word of God” and that the doctrine of sola scriptura is a tradition of men.
Can anyone help me think of examples where the doctrine of sola scriptura “nullifies the word of God” (word of God as referring to either Sacred Scripture or oral, Sacred Tradition).

Sola Scriptura makes the entire Scriptures null and void. The list of what is to be in the Bible is nowhere in Scripture so if we cannot find the list of books in Scripture than no one can be absolutely sure that any one of them is Scripture.

Ken

 

[Thal59]

II Thess 2:15 “So then, bretheren, stand firm and hold the traditions you have learned from us, whether by word or by letter of ours.”

Some bibles read, “…whether written or oral.”

The biblical word of God states to adhere to both the oral preaching as well as the written word. This is why the church adheres to both the oral (Apostolic Tradition) as well as the written. (Scriptures.)

Sola Scriptura nullifies this by saying scripture only, and not the oral.

Thal59

 

[TobyLue]

How many definitions of Sola Scripture are there by the way?

 

[MariaG]

TobyLue:

How many definitions of Sola Scripture are there by the way?

I have heard the distinction here on this forum as this

Sola Scriptura is the Lutheran type. They acknowledge Tradition but their is a Primacy of Scripture.

Sol*o *Scriptura, even if not proper language usage, is used by Sola Scriptura people who differentiate themselves from the more fundamental Christians who would call themselves Bible Alone. They do not believe that Tradition has any weight at all. Which is why bringing up the writings of Church Fathers is fruitless because if it is not in the Bible, it is not important.

Those are two distinctions I know of made by a Lutheran? Episcopalean? on this forum. (Ahh, when of when will there be spell check on this forum:crying: )

God Bless,
Maria

 

[TobyLue]

Episcopalean? on this forum. (Ahh, when of when will there be spell check on this forum

Maria, Why dont you type what you intend to say in MS word first then after you have done all spell check and punk-two-a-shun then copy over to the reply form. (Episcopalian)

 

[MariaG]

TobyLue:

Maria, Why dont you type what you intend to say in MS word first then after you have done all spell check and punk-two-a-shun then copy over to the reply form. (Episcopalian)

Usually, I will go to Dictionary.com when I know I have completely misspelled a word.

I don’t know why I don’t do it that way Probably because DH wanted me get rid of the cute smiley program (trackers etc.) so if I want to put them in I have to use CA’s. And ultimately, I am just too lazy to go back and add them I guess

God Bless and Thanks for the proper spelling!

Maria

 

[johnpaullover]

Anima Christi:

Protestants often quote Jesus’ condemnation of the Pharisees to condemn Sacred Tradition. It occurred to me though that Jesus condemned “traditions of men” because they “nullify the word of God” and that the doctrine of sola scriptura is a tradition of men.
Can anyone help me think of examples where the doctrine of sola scriptura “nullifies the word of God” (word of God as referring to either Sacred Scripture or oral, Sacred Tradition).

Oh, gimme a break. Don’t go on teasing Protestants this way. You are very right, but this is a bad arguement.

Protestants have their own traditions, but they are more strange and un-biblical that Catholic ones. The one you pointed out is OK, but there are lots more. What about the Baptist’s tee-totaling business, or interpeting the Bible on your own, or dispensationalism, or interpreting the Bible literally? The last is my favorite because of the not-so-famous Job question. (This Rock, Letters, March 2006).

 

[threadkiller]

Thal59:

II Thess 2:15 “So then, bretheren, stand firm and hold the traditions you have learned from us, whether by word or by letter of ours.”

Some bibles read, “…whether written or oral.”

The biblical word of God states to adhere to both the oral preaching as well as the written word. This is why the church adheres to both the oral (Apostolic Tradition) as well as the written. (Scriptures.)

Sola Scriptura nullifies this by saying scripture only, and not the oral.

Thal59/QUOTE
Jesus is speaking about the end of time, “It is like a man going on a journey, when he leaves home and puts his servants in charge, each with his work, and commands the doorkeeper to be on watch. Watch therefore, for you do not know when the master of the house will come, in the evening, at midnight, or at cockrow, or in the morning, lest he come suddenly and find you asleep. And what I say to you, I say to all. Watch”. Mark 10.34-37. Obviously, the man who went on a journey in this parable is Christ Himself. He didn’t leave written instructions. He left his servants in charge. Who are these servants and how do we know who’s in charge? The KEY, oops, pardon the pun. To find out who’s in charge, you have to find the doorkeeper. The one the master ordered to watch. Obviously the doorkeeper is the one who has the keys (Matt 16.18-19). The doorkeeper wasn’t up to the task of keeping watch, not even for an hour( Mark10. 37, because he was clothed in the weakness of the flesh. Mark 10.38). Now that he’s been clothed with the power from on high(Luke 24.59), he can keep watch, even for an “hour”(Matt 20.7-8, 1John 2.18), through his successors (Isaiah 22.15-22), the present one being Pope Benedict XVI. The Pope continues to keep watch in this final hour(1John 2.18), so that he’ll be able to open the gate when our blessed Lord returns in glory(John 10.3. Matt.20).
I know I’ve strayed off the subject a little but I’m just trying to point out that we’re not called to submit to the authority of a book(sola scriptura, John 5.39), but to the authority of the Church(Mark 13.34, Luke 10.16, 1Tim 3.15)

 

[trogiah]

As generally happens when people disagree about something, each side picks a name and the two names then become opposed. “Scripture” vs “Tradition” in this case.

The thing is, we are not called to seek the kingdom of “Scripture” nor are we called to seek the kingdom of “Tradition”. We are told to seek, before anything else, the kingdom of God. Both Scripture and Tradition are powerful forces to help us find God’s kingdom - if they are properly used.

Jesus placed great value on both Scripture and Tradition. He recognized and accepted the plan for his death because “how else could Scripture be fulfulled?” He never condemned the following of Traditions but he criticized the placing of lesser important Traditions before greater Traditions. For example he placed the Tradition of “setting captives free” before the tradition of keeping the Sabbath free of the noise, excitement and movement that resulted from a person being healed.

We are intended to use both Scripture and Tradition to help us find God’s kingdom.

Jim

 

[mozart-250]

First of all “Sola scriptura” is probably at best a simplistic and at worst a misleading title for what us non-Catholics believe.

And from everything I have read in Catholic forums, they take the title and ascribe to it beliefs that just aren’t there. And just as Catholics have a right to cry foul when their beliefs are mischaracterized, I would have to cry foul here.

Do you folks actually believe we reinvent the wheel for every point of Christianity? I don’t know about you, but I am not that smart to be able to do so. Do you think you can come up with the Trinity all by your lonesome, just you, your Bible, 'n Jesus? If you can, you are better than me, because I can’t.

Fortunately I believe in the Trinity for what I suspect is the same reason that Catholics believe it; it was decided 350-400.

If you want to get Latin, I think “Prima scriptura” might be a better title than “Sola scriptura”.

 

[johnq]

trogiah:

We are intended to use both Scripture and Tradition to help us find God’s kingdom.
Jim

Here is a good Old Testament scripture showing the importance of the authority given to the written and oral word.

2 Chr 36:14-16, 19-23
22: In the first year of Cyrus, king of Persia, in order to fulfill the word of the LORD spoken by Jeremiah, the LORD inspired King Cyrus of Persia to issue this proclamation throughout his kingdom, **both by word of mouth and in writing:

---